Talk:The Ashlee Simpson Show
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
The Ashlee Simpson Show was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Delisted version: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{DelistedGA|insert date in any format here}} |
should not omit any major facets of the topic - like production details, who made it, how, why, how was it received, critical reviews, ratings etc etc etc ?
ASHIEY I HAVE A ? WHEN DID YOU START SINGING?
Reverted to the fawning (i.e., NPOV gushing)
…she gave more successful performances at the Radio Music Awards…and she was happy to see the continued support of her fans despite the negative publicity she received from the SNL incident
to
…she gave a number of "redeeming" performances
--Calton 04:29, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Couldn't hear herself
I'm not sure how you show technical issues like that. All I saw were claims that she couldn't hear herself. You see Jessica claim that Ashlee touching her ear means she is having technical issues, and you hear commentary made after-the-fact which also claims that that is true. The simple fact is, at the very end, when the band went silent and she was still singing, she could hear herself. Judge for yourselves if she was in tune then. [1]
If I'm wrong, and they did show actual technical issues (and not just claims of issues), please give me specifics. -- BRIAN0918 04:32, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Well, is this a controversy? I don't see why we would need to qualify it unless it's disputed. Everyking 05:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I may have just forgotten something from the show. Please provide any evidence that she actually did have technical problems (not just talk abou technical problems). I'm just trying to be neutral. It's better than lying. -- BRIAN0918 05:48, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- ...Lying? Everyking 05:52, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I didn't say you were or that they are, but it seemed very odd of them to completely cut out the booing and never speak of it. So, I question everything else they say in that episode. -- BRIAN0918 06:01, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Well, if you dispute it, you can have it qualified, then. Everyking 06:12, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I didn't say you were or that they are, but it seemed very odd of them to completely cut out the booing and never speak of it. So, I question everything else they say in that episode. -- BRIAN0918 06:01, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- ...Lying? Everyking 05:52, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I may have just forgotten something from the show. Please provide any evidence that she actually did have technical problems (not just talk abou technical problems). I'm just trying to be neutral. It's better than lying. -- BRIAN0918 05:48, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Meowbot, you need a better reason for reverting something than "claim from troll posing as Simpson". Can you try to give one? Everyking 16:50, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Do we need reasons to revert random changes that trolls make to article content? silsor 16:56, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
- A) You don't know it was random, B) You don't know it was a troll, C) Even if it was both, that wouldn't necessarily make it a bad edit. Everyking 17:00, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Well, "random" is just an adjective, but yes, a troll. You're just too vulnerable to "her" to notice. silsor 22:47, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
- It was unsourced and unattributed, end of story. --iMb~Meow 17:05, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Well, it sounds to me like you've got a task on your hands. Can't you get in touch with some of your friends in the industry to confirm or deny the claim? Preferably get it in writing and scan it. Everyking 17:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- A) You don't know it was random, B) You don't know it was a troll, C) Even if it was both, that wouldn't necessarily make it a bad edit. Everyking 17:00, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- The claim was properly removed according to Wikipedia:No original research, and for a Wikipedia administrator would urge the violation of that very policy is utterly shocking. --iMb~Meow 17:41, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Just because someone didn't cite a source doesn't make it original research. A great majority of Wikipedia's content is not cited. It should be, but I'm not going around deleting it, either. Everyking 18:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The claim was properly removed according to Wikipedia:No original research, and for a Wikipedia administrator would urge the violation of that very policy is utterly shocking. --iMb~Meow 17:41, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- After some unwilling googling, it does look like the troll was right for the most part, provided that any of that is actually true (and they aren't just claiming stuff to save themselves), but I don't agree with removing the link from the article. It is relevant, at least to this article. -- BRIAN0918 17:47, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The link was to the same Orange Bowl clip people keep adding to these articles, and I see that there's already at least one link for it still in Ashlee Simpson. Since the linked clip didn't originate with The Ashlee Simpson Show, isn't adding it to this article just a wee bit like gratuitous ragging? --iMb~Meow 18:21, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- It's mentioned in the article that she was in fact booed, regardless of whether it was actually in the show. It's not I'm responsible for the booing. It just seems like a legitimate thing to include; otherwise, if people just saw the show, they'd think everything went alright, except that she had some audio problems. -- BRIAN0918 18:55, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The link was to the same Orange Bowl clip people keep adding to these articles, and I see that there's already at least one link for it still in Ashlee Simpson. Since the linked clip didn't originate with The Ashlee Simpson Show, isn't adding it to this article just a wee bit like gratuitous ragging? --iMb~Meow 18:21, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- After some unwilling googling, it does look like the troll was right for the most part, provided that any of that is actually true (and they aren't just claiming stuff to save themselves), but I don't agree with removing the link from the article. It is relevant, at least to this article. -- BRIAN0918 17:47, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:ASH060 (2).jpg
Image:ASH060 (2).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
